Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.



Notes of 1891



From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 February, 1891. Price 1d.


George Clift was charged with being drunk, and with indecent conduct in Northampton Street.

Police-constable Knott proved the charge.

The Magistrates said it was an offence which they were bound to punish, and sent him to prison for 14 days with hard labour.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 March, 1891. Price 1d.


The engineer of the “Bullfrog” tug, who was landed at Dungeness on Monday to send a telegram, was lost in the storm and frozen to death. The tug came into Dover.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 24 April, 1891. Price 1d.


A special meeting of the Managing Committee was held at the Council Chamber on Tuesday morning, to consider the Surveyor's report on places of public resort. The Mayor was present in the chair, and also Alderman Fry, Councillor Brown, Peake, and Edwin.

The Surveyors read his report, and the various places were dealt with seriatim.


The report on this was to the effect that all regulations were observed, and the building was passed without remark.


The Surveyor's report on this subject was to the effect that it would be desirable when any alterations took place at this place, to require a better mode of egress from the left body of the hall and left gallery; and from the stage and dressing-room.

After discussion, it was resolved by the members of the Committee to visit the place.


As to this room, the Surveyor made no recommendation of new work, but he said that there was a third way of egress to Northampton Street, which was not ordinarily used, and he recommended that that mode of egress should be always available. A discussion arose as to the sufficiency of the mode of exit from the gallery, not no requirement was mad in that respect.


The Surveyor described the arrangements of this building. He recommended that the doors opening into the Market Square should be locked back during performances, and that several other doors should be made to swing or open outwards.

It was resolved to visit this building.


The report described this hall as capable of accommodating 160 persons. He recommended that the front door should be locked back if the Council thought that that one mode of egress was sufficient.

It was decided to visit it.


The report on this required certain doors to be made to swing.


The only requirement in this case were that certain doors should be locked back. And some one in attendance at the big doors during performances.


It was recommended in this case by the Surveyor that the first gate should lock back, and that both means of egress should be available, and that there should be a door made to swing.


The whole of the doors ought to be converted into swing doors. The Committee seemed to think that owing to the unflammable construction of this room, and many ways of egress, it was hardly necessary to make any alterations.


The Surveyor reported on this hall, and recommended that the first door to New Street should be fastened back during meetings or performances, and that other doors should be made to swing.

SCHOOL OF ART Northampton Street.

Some of the Committee questioned whether this building came under the Act, but it was held that it did. The report described the buildings, and suggested that certain doors should be made to swing, and that the large doors should be locked back when there is a public assembly there, and an egress was made from the store room to the slipway yard.


It was recommended that the outer door should be locked back, and certain doors be made to swing. In reply to a member, he said that the room would hold 120 members. This was allowed to stand over as the place is not let.


Alderman Fry called attention to the fact that the Oddfellows hall. When smoking concerts are held, was not required on, and Councillor Brown said that it was a question whether such buildings, used only by members should be dealt with, and if they came to that decision, then the Working Man's Institute should be left out. It was resolved to defer the consideration of this matter until the Town Clerk had considered this matter.


It was asked if this place was not to be dealt with, and the Surveyor replied that he had not visited that place yet, as it would be dealt with under another clause relating to dancing on licensed premises.


The Surveyor reported that he was in doubt as to reporting on the Wellington Hall, the Soldiers' Institute, and the Sailors' Home, and they were left over for the Town Clerk to give his opinion. The Town Clerk's opinion was also to be asked as to the Dover College Hall, the clubs, &c.


The Surveyor had reported on the schools in the town, but the consideration of those was deferred till another meeting.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 31 July, 1891. Price 1d.


A public meeting was held at the Town Hall on Monday evening convened by the Dover Temperance Council to pass a resolution with reference to the desirability of closing those public houses which were not needed in Dover. The hall at the commencement was barely filled, but as the meeting proceeded the hall filled up till there was over 400 people present. Mr. H. Brown, the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Association, was present, and as will be seen in the report below spoke. There was also several worthies at the bottom of the Hall, who, from their remarks, thought that they were going to be oppressed. Amongst those who supported the Rev. H. Smith, who took the chair, were the Revs. E. J. Edwards, Rev. W. A. N. Challicombe, Rev. J. J. Walker, Rev. Stewart Perfect, Rev. J. R. Martin, Rev. J. Kennard, Colonel Miller, and Messrs. E. Chitty, G. Wilkie, G. Butcher, &c.

The proceedings having been opened by prayer.

The Rev. H. Smith said that their object in meeting there that night would be recognised as of great importance and touching very closely the well-being and moral state of their town. They would notice that they had no strangers on the platform, as they felt that it was not a matter for outsiders. They were called together to consider if the existing number of public houses are proportionate to the needs of the town. He did not believe that there was a single person who did not believe that, and if he might whisper to them, some of their friends the enemy were of the same opinion. For it had been told of him that some of the leading brewers thought there were more public houses than there ought to be, and that august public body, the Watch Committee, had also come to the same conclusion. (Cheers.) The Rev. gentleman then proceeded to lay before the meeting a few figures. In the first place, the population of Dover last census was 33,128, and, he was indebted to the Dover Express of last week for these figures, because they had not appeared yet elsewhere, the number of houses, 5,813, and, according to the Parliamentary report on the Police of England which he had, the number of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors on the premises was 200. Consequently there was one public house for every 29 houses in Dover, and they should mark that it was not every one of these 29 houses that obtained their beer or wine from public houses, as the better class houses got it from the wine merchants and brewers. So it was really only about one in every 25. he then compared this state of things with that in the other towns in Kent, where there was only an average of one to every 41. The population of Dover could be increased to 50,000 without a single public house being added. Suppose that the Magistrates at the next Brewster Sessions resolve to make a great diminution in the number of licenses, as they have no doubt the right and power to do so, and a responsibility that they must cast on them. They must tell the Magistrates that they have the power in the matter, and must reduce the houses by 70, so that this town may have the same average as other towns in Kent. Referring top the argument that supply and demand should rule the question, the rev. gentleman said that the law recognised the trade as an exceptional one. In the Police report, he had mentioned before, the number of public-houses, prosecutions, and convictions were mentioned side by side with crimes &c. If they were to decrease the number of houses they would decrease the number of people who drink. The rev. gentleman said that it was in no spirit of enmity or ill-feeling to anyone that they were taking this course, but they felt that the magistrates had been responsible for the mistake in granting these licenses, and, no doubt, those interested in the trade were also responsible, they felt that they had also let these things slide, and that they were responsible before God. (Cheers.)

The Rev. W. A. N. Challicombe proposed the first resolution – “That the existing number of licensed houses was considerably in excess of the needs of the town, and should be diminished.” The rev. gentleman, who spoke with considerable warmth, was frequently interrupted. He said that a cry of compensation could not now be made since the Licensed Victuallers' Barrister had acknowledged in the Times that that had no right to compensation. The rev. gentleman said he was a friend of the landlords, because if they were to shut up the 70 houses they would be able to make a better living (cheers and interruption).

Mr. Wilkie, the Secretary of the Temperance Council, seconded the proposition. Having referred to Mr. Smith's figures, he said that he found, according to Pike's Directory, that there were as many public-houses in Dover as provision shops of all sorts. None of the Magistrates had been invited to the platform, because they felt that they should not be asked to appear to lead one side or the other, as they must decide the matter, and as the Chairman had said, that while the Temperance Council was willing to do its share of the work, they were mot prepared to take the Magistrates' responsibility. A little while ago, remarks were made on the occasion of the granting of licenses for music and dancing, and it was supposed that the Temperance Council would meet next week to discuss them. The Temperance Council did nothing of the sort. The responsibility of licensing rests with the Magistrates, and they have no right to shirk that responsibility and throw it back on the teetotalet. They have taken this position as Magistrates, and it is not too much to suppose that they have taken it because they desire to do the duties not merely that they might have the honour and write J.P. at the ends of their names, and be received in better society and patted on the back by this person and the other, and when the dirty work and responsibility comes, require to be backed up to do it. They felt they had a grievance and took a constitutional way of airing their grievances by calling this public meeting. Last Friday he attended the Police Court, and it opened his eyes considerably as to the way this business was conducted. He wished that some more would take the trouble to go about the town, not only during the day but after eleven o'clock, and they could bear witness that all the public-houses were not shut at that time. It wanted the people of Dover to go and see these things themselves, because if they could stir up healthy public opinion, the Magistrates would be bound to act. (Cheers.) The speaker then referred to the transfer question, and to the great number of changes that were always being made.
The motion was carried unanimously.

The Rev. A. H. Smith said that the Rev. E. J. Edwards would then move a resolution. The rev. gentleman also read the memorial which was referred to in Mr. Edwards' motion. It was to the same effect as the resolution.

Mr. Hatton Brown rose to speak, and asked leave to move a resolution. (Disorder).

The Chairman said there was at present no resolution before the meeting, and he could speak afterward, but not then.

Mr. Brown rose again and commenced to speak, but his words were inaudible. Being unable to obtain a hearing he resumed his seat.

The Rev. E. J. Edwards rose to move the following proposition:- that the following memorial should be signed by the Chairman on behalf of this meeting, and presented to the Magistrates at the Brewster Sessions.” He said he did not think Mr. Smith's figures as to the number of licensed houses in Dover were quite correct. According to a Parliamentary paper issued in August last, there were altogether 235 on-licenses and 42 off-licenses which was a licensed house for every 141 persons in the town including children. He compared Dover to Falmouth, which was in the same condition as to a military and seafaring population, where there was one house to every 333 people. He also referred to the town or Barrow-in-Furness.

Mr. Hatton Brown said that the Dover figures referred to the borough and the liberties. (Cheers.)

The Rev. E. J. Edwards said he supposed the return included the liberties of Barrow-in-Furness. (Laughter and interruption). He said there was also in Dover a number of the public houses which were used for immoral purposes in Dover. [Mr. H. Brown: Shut them up.] They would do so when the proper time came. During the last six years there had been a continual renewal of licenses. Some houses have changed hands, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or more times in that short period. There is no trade for them, and they should stop the tenants from losing their money. They hoped to have the houses which had been improperly conducted, in addition to the 70 not required, shut up at the next Brewster Sessions. (Cheers.)

Mr. Butcher seconded the motion.

Mr. H. Brown then ascended the platform and addressed the meeting. He said he had spent his whole life in the public line, and his friends on the platform could not possibly know what he knew of public houses. He was surprised that nothing had been said about clubs. (Cheers.) There was no one more anxious than he was to do away with public houses, and they had one of the best opportunities when Mr. Goschen introduced that clause in the Budget, where 6d. a gallon for spirits and 3d. for beer should be taken for compensation of public houses. Those who knew Dover must be perfectly well aware that there are 40 public houses which people would be only too glad to shut up if they were given a fair price. A person might have 200 which he wished to put in business. He cannot be a grocer or baker, and they put their money into the public line. And if there was no vested interest, surely they would not let the man next transfer day sell it to another for 200, and the magistrates to grant the transfer, and then come and say to this man on renewal day, out you go into the streets. (Cheers.) the speaker went on to say that no one should be blamed for the number of licenses existing, as they were granted at a time when there were no canteens for soldiers to go to. He also said that they had a Police Force which had no equal for vigilance. (Cheers.)

The motion was carried, and the meeting concluded shortly after ten o'clock.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 7 August, 1891. Price 1d.


To the Editor of the “Dover Express”.

Sir – A meeting was convened in the Town Hall on Monday week for the purpose of petitioning the Magistrates to reduce the number of licensed public houses for the sale of intoxicating drinks in Dover.

Being a visitor, and an abstainer on scientific grounds, I went to hear the matter discussed, and after what was said on both sides, it strikes me that the conveners have begun at the wrong end. It sounded too much like two or three housebreakers trying to reduce the number of such, rather than a question of right or wrong. If a system is wrong stamp it out, if right let those get a living at it who can.

Though alcoholic drinks are said to be more destructive to life than war, pestilence, and famine combined, it is hand-in-glove with the Church, recognised by this country as a lawful business, and a trade in which ministers and people spend more money than in any other known commerce, it must be looked at fairly as a question now “of demand and supply.”

One speaker said “there were many in the business who could not make a living out of it, let them give it up and find another way of getting a living.” But who is to come out? And what else can they earn a living at?

Those men have invested their money in the business, therefore, as a matter of principle, it seems unjust to take away one man's license more than another's, and further it is a question of demand and supply. While the people will have it if the magistrates were to close two public houses out of three – the followers of the two would find their way to the third. But where shall they begin? Whose license shall they refuse, and whose shall they renew?

The Rev. Mr. Edwards, in his able speech, referred to the very few public houses in Cornwall. As a Cornishman, I wish to say that the reduction of licenses houses in Cornwall is not due to the discretion of the Magistrates, but to the people themselves, who are head and shoulders above any other county on this question. They believe that intoxicant as a beverage is wrong, that it generates gout, rheumatism, and other fatal hereditary diseases, which are handed down from parents to children, and, by withholding their patronage, hundreds of pubs have died a natural death.

Let the ministers and the Church universally cease to court and support this national evil, and teach the people that alcoholic drink as a beverage is scientifically injurious to man's physical constitution, morally wrong, a religious curse, and its doom is sealed; it will soon find its right place, which is the Chemist's shop or the Doctor's dispensary.

I am your &c.

P. Cornwall

Dover, July 30th 1891.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 14 August, 1891. Price 1d.


To the Editor of the “Dover Express”.

Sir, - Permit me to thank you for your leading article of last week in reference to the renewal of publicans' licenses. It must be gratifying to the Dover temperance Council, one of whose object is to lessen the number of licenses, to know that the public press regards their mode of action as proper and constitutional. I am glad to find, also that the Liberal organ of such a constituency as Dover so distinctly recognises that “Compensation is as dead as a door nail. Parliament never dare apply public money for that purpose.” And no doubt, for some time to come, temperance workers will have to rely on chiefly such means as personal example, the press, the platform, the pulpit, and public opinion, to rescue those who are no in subjection to the evils of intemperance, and to keep from being ensnared by them the children and others who are now free.

But as the licensed houses help so largely to maintain and develop the evils of intemperance among the people, almost all temperance and religious agencies see the absolute necessity of lessening the number of such aids to intemperance. It does appear strange at first sight that while licensed houses have been slightly reduced in number during the last two years, drunkenness has increased. That is a very hasty judgement which charges the decrease in licenses with the increase of intemperance. The real cause of the growth of drunkenness during the last two years are manifold; but the chief one is this described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech in April, 1890. “And the Committee will notice that this rush to alcohol has been universal. Some have rushed to the beer barrel, others to the spirit bottle, others to the decanter, but all classes seemed to have combined in toasting the prosperity of the country, and have largely increased the revenue. I call the special attention of the House of Commons to this extraordinary circumstance - a circumstance which will be deplored by almost every one for many reasons, and which places upon the Government and upon the House and in increasing liability to deal with the question of the consumption of alcoholic drinks.” He also stated, “And so it appears that notwithstanding all our hopes, increased prosperity means not an increased consumption of all the other great articles, but has, unfortunately, meant, and does mean, a great increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquors.”

Again, in introducing his Budget this year, 1891, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, “Although the increase in this consumption of alcoholic beverage may be viewed with some regret, there is, at the same time, in that increase of consumption one element of satisfaction. It is that it shows the powers of consumption of the working classes, owing to the increase of wages, have been on the increase during the last year.

I think Sir, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly explains how it has been possible for intemperance to increase at the same time that licenses have decreased in number. There has been during the last two years, owing to largely increased prosperity, a very large increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquors, and that of necessity means, on the part of many, increased intemperance. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in 1890, the responsibility of the Government and the House of Commons, so now the Dover Temperance Council points to the responsibility of the Licensing Authorities, and fully agrees with you that “it only remains for the Magistrates to be vigilant, and promptly close every house which infringes the law.”

I believe, also, that some licenses which are constantly changing hands, to the enriching of the owner and the impoverishing of each successive publican, might be allowed to lapse. It should also be a point with our rulers that not one license should in any circumstance be granted. I might say more, but have already trespassed on your valuable space.

Obediently yours


Dover, August 12th, 1891.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.


The annual sitting of the Dover Magistrates forming the Licensing Committee for the Borough was held on Monday in the Sessions House, Dover, when there were on the Bench the mayor (Alderman Adcock), Sir Richard Dickeson, Dr. Astley, J. L. Bradley, T. V. Brown, M. Pepper, and G. E. Toomer, Esqrs.

Owing to the great interest which has been manifested in the Licensing Question in Parliament, the Press, and the country generally, as well as on account of the special action taken by the Dover Temperance Council in the matter, the Court was crowded, the seats, which at the Sessions are occupied by the Jury, were, on this occasion, filled by members of the Dover Temperance Council, amongst whom were the Rev. A. Howell Smith, Mrs. Howell Smith, Miss Maddicks, Colonel Smythe, General Heath, and the Rev. Mr. Evill. The seats reserved for professional men were also fully occupied, amongst those present being Mr. Mark Knowles, instructed by Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Temperance Council, Mr. Martyn Mowll, Mr. Woolaston Knocker (Town Clerk), Mr. J. Minter (Folkestone), and Mr. Armstrong, a London Solicitor.

The first part of the proceedings on these annual licensing days is to call over the names of the houses, and grant the licenses as a matter of course in cases where there are no objections, and the Court was about to proceed with the usual routine when:-



Mr. Mark Knowles: may it please your Worship, I attend here by the instructions –

The Mayor: We will take the renewals first. We propose to renew the existing licenses of the borough first –

Mr. Mark Knocker: That is just why I wish at this stage, without occupying your time, to present a petition upon that very subject. It is a petition signed by 2290 women of Dover against –

The Mayor: Are you going to prove it on oath?

Mr. Mark Knowles: I propose to use it as evidence, and to call witnesses to prove it –

The Mayor: I wish you to tell us for what purpose you wish to use it.

Mr. Mark Knowles: In the first place I propose to use it against the renewal of the licenses of the seven houses of which we have given notice.

The Magistrates' Clerk: They will be dealt with presently.

The Mayor: You had better wait till they come on.

Mr. Mark Knowles: But I wish indirectly to use the petition on the general question of renewals, and to ask the Bench if they cannot do something to reduce the number of the houses. It is within your Worship's power, if anything should turn up at these Sessions, to adjourn the cases to Broadstairs and give notice –

The Mayor: I think I must ask you to sit down at present, so that we may take the business in due order, which is, first, to consider the renewals.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I should like to mention –

The Mayor: We will proceed in the usual way.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I will read the names of the occupiers of the different houses; they will answer to their names, and they may obtain their licenses in the next room.

The reading of the list was then commenced, but before the process had long been continued, the Mayor consulted with his colleagues, and then he proceeded to make public.



The Mayor, addressing the Court generally said: I may say, before proceeding further with the renewal of the existing licenses, that the Magistrates have had under consideration what they consider the large excess of public-houses in the borough, the excess over the actual requirements, and although they do not intend to take any action this year, except with regard to the houses the licenses of which are opposed, and the owners of which have had regular notice to attend here to-day, yet they have passed this resolution:-

“It is resolved that at the annual licensing meeting to be held on the 24th instant, the Chairman of the meeting do state publicly that the Licensing Justices consider that the number of licensed houses in the following district is larger than adequate for the due requirements of such districts, and that, unless the number of licensed houses in such districts be reduced before the annual licensing meeting to be held in 1892, the Licensing Justices will then take steps with a view to such reduction, namely, the Pier district west of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Station, Strond Street, Commercial Quay, Snargate Street, London Road, High Street, Bridge Street, Peter Street, and Charlton Green.”

The effect of this will be, that the Magistrates having come to the conclusion that there are a great many public-houses in certain districts which are of very little benefit to the owners, the tenants, or the public, and if some of these houses are not suppressed before the next licensing day, the Magistrates will have to carry out a resolution at which they arrived the other day.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Will the Magistrates signify to what extent they will be prepared to go? At Bath of Saturday –

The Mayor: We will now go on with the business.

Mr. Mark Knowles: If the Magistrates would give some idea of what they propose to do. At Bath on Saturday, the magistrates intimated that 25 per cent –

The Mayor: I must ask you to sit down.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Oh certainly.

The routine reading of the names was then continued, broken at intervals by the mention of



This stood over, notice of objection having been lodged in the name of the Temperance Council.


The occupier of this house, who had been fined during the year for serving a policeman with liquor, while on duty, was called up and cautioned.


Objection to the renewal of this licence having been lodged by the Temperance Council, it stood over.


Mr. Woolaston Knocker applied for the renewal of the license for this unused hotel, and it was granted.


J. V. Duggins was called up, and cautioned, he having been convicted and fined for supplying liquor to a drunken person.


On the name of the “White Hart Inn” being called, the Superintendent of the Police mentioned that it was at present unoccupied, but on the application of Mr. Mowll, the license was renewed.


The renewal of this license was objected to by the Temperance Council, and it stood out of the ordinary list.


On the name of the “Flying Horse,” King Street, being called, the Magistrates' Clerk mentioned that the house had been purchased by the Government for the site of a post office, hence there was no application for the renewal of this license.


Objections being taken to the “Mariners' Arms,” (otherwise known as the Khedive), both by the Watch Committee and the Temperance Party, it stood over till the end, as did also the “Marquis of Waterford” for the same reason, and the “Northampton Arms.”


When the “Mitre Tavern” was reached in the list, that was singled out, having been objected to by the Temperance Council.


No application was made for the renewal of the license of the “Pavilion Tavern,” but it being known to the magistrates that the owner, Mr. J. T. Drake, had recently died, the case was adjourned to Broadstairs to establish the widow to take such steps as she might be advised in the matter.


A new tenant, T. Allchin, having been put in this house, Mr. Mowll applied for the license to be granted in his name, under the ruling in the case Regina v. the Liverpool Justices, and the license was granted.


The owner of this house was summoned on the 13th of March, 1891, charged with serving liquor to a drunken person, but the case was dismissed, nevertheless, the owner was called up and cautioned to be more careful in the future.

[Sotto Voce In law, "sotto voce" on a transcript indicates a conversation heard below the hearing of the court reporter. (from the Solicitor's Bench), not guilty, but don't do it again!]


A question was asked by a Magistrate about the transfer of the license of this house, but nothing arose out of it, and the license was renewed.


The names of John Clark and J. M. Smith, holders of licenses for the sale of British wines, were not answered to, and at the end they were repeated with the same result.


The Magistrates' Clerk said the Magistrates would next proceed to consider the objections to the houses standing over, and would commence with


Mr. Mark Knowles: May it please your Worships: I appear, instructed by Mr. Montague Bradley, to oppose in this case; to oppose on the ground that the license is not wanted. But, before doing so, I wish first of all to put in this petition from the women of Dover. At this stage it will not be required to be proved, therefore, without occupying your time further on this point, I will just hand it in.

The Mayor: The Magistrates consider that this is quite irrelevant. The magistrates have announced their decision on the general question of public houses in Dover, and do not wish that part of the question to be re-opened.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I do not propose to re-open it, and I will not occupy your Worship's time after the brusque way you have dealt with me. I simply wished to offer my client's protest amongst the large number of public houses in Dover, but I have no wish to irritate the Magistrates at all.

The Mayor: Then we will proceed.

Mr. Mark Knocker: But in other places there has been an idea given of the extent to which the Magistrates intend to carry their refusal of licenses in the future. At Bath on Saturday the Magistrates foreshadowed in some districts a reduction of 25 per cent.

The Mayor: The magistrates are not prepared to give any such information.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Then I will not carry that part further, but probably you will accept this evidence as being applicable to the whole of the houses that we ask to be suppressed.

The Mayor: Understand be clearly; we are prepared to deal with these houses seriatim, (Seriatim (Latin for "in series") is a legal term typically used to indicate that a court is addressing multiple issues in a certain order, such as the order that the issues were originally presented to the court) and your remarks must be applied to this one especially, and not to the general question of the number of public houses in the borough.

Mr. Mark Knocker: Beyond the question of the number of these houses, I wish to call attention to the changes in the ownership of these houses.

Mr. Martyn Mowll: Your Worship, I really must protest –

Mr. Mark Knowles: Will my friend sit down.

The Mayor: The learned Counsel –

Mr. Martyn Mowll: I wish this gentleman to confine himself to the notice of opposition which he has given.

Mr. Mark Knocker: I am submitting my case to the Bench within the lines of my notice, and the evidence that I propose to give as to why this license is not required. I contend that the fact that a license has changed hands frequently, is the best proof that the house is not wanted in the neighbourhood. If you do not wish to have that evidence I will not press it; but I submit that there is nothing more clearly to the point than such evidence.]

The Mayor: Go on, we are prepared to hear you.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I simply wish to impress on your Worships this point, that the repeated changes of the occupants of this house, the knowledge of which is before the Court, is evidence that you should not renew it.

The Magistrates' Clerk: What evidence do you offer on that point?
Mr. Mark Knowles: It is within the knowledge of the Court.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The Magistrates can only adjudicate on evidence given before them on oath.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Then I will, without further occupying your time, call my witnesses.

James Gray, having been sworn, in reply to Mr. Knowles said: I delivered the notice now produced to the postal authorities, addressed to G. Long, at the “Sportsman Inn,” Charlton Green, and it has not been returned through the post.

The Magistrates' Clerk then read the notice of objection, the ground of objection to the renewal being that the license is not required by the neighbourhood. The notice was signed by G. Wilkie, who was in Court.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Is that Mr. Wilkie's signature?

Mr. Wilkie: No, that is a copy, the original was served on the holder of the license as proved.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It is usual for the original, and the copy to be signed.

Mr. Mark Knowles then stated that there were changes in the ownership of the “Sportsman Inn” in 1882, 1884 twice, 1885, 1886 twice, 1888 twice, in 1889 and 1890, and he called Superintendent T. O. Sanders, whom he examined as follows:-

Was the license of this house transferred in January, 1882?

The register will tell that, I cannot tell from memory. If I had known that I was going to be asked this question I could have prepared for it.

The documentary evidence is in your possession, and I am only following the usual course in asking this question; but I will ask you generally if the ownership of this house has not frequently changed?

Several times it has changed hands.

In cross-examination by Mr. Mowll, the witness said that the house had been conducted in a proper manner. He could not say that a change of hands was evidence that a house was being well conducted. No doubt if a landlord would encourage all sorts of persons he might sell more beer in some cases; in other cases the rough trade would drive the respectable trade away. There were four houses in the neighbourhood, the “Sportsman” the “Rose,” the “Grapes,” and the “Red Lion.” He could not say which was the best house; the “Sportsman” was the newest, but some people liked the old houses best. In 1882 this house received the special consideration of the Bench, and on that occasion the license was renewed and at an adjournment at Broadstairs.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I will not put Mr. Wilkie into the box now, so that will be the whole of the evidence.

Mr. Martin Mowll: I don't wish to lead this gentleman into a trap; but I should like to know if he has definitely closed the case or not.

Mr. Knowles: I said I had closed my case.

Mr. Mowll: Then I must first contend that he has not proved his notice; the gentleman should have put Mr. Wilkie into the box to prove that he was a person capable of objecting to this license. Who signed the notice? That has not been proved. I must take the ruling of your Worship on this point before going into the merit of the case.
The Mayor: The consideration of our decision will be adjourned until all the cases have been heard.

Mr. Mowll: I have a good answer on the merits of the case, but I first take this preliminary objection that the notice has not been sufficiently proved.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I think the notice has been sufficiently proved.

Mr. Mowll: There is no evidence that Mr. Wilkie is a ratepayer.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I don't think that evidence is necessary. If you or Mr. Knocker can show me that I am wrong, I shall be glad to put right.

Mr. Mowll: I see the clause says “any person.”

After some further technical points had been discussed, Mr. Mowll argued on the merits of the case, and there was no ground for refusing this license. The house was well conducted, and it was the best house in the neighbourhood. It was true that there had been changes in its management, but he contended that that was evidence of a desire to conduct the house properly.

The decision of the Bench was reserved to the end of the sitting.


This license was opposed by Mr. Mark Knowles, on behalf of the Temperance Council, the notice of objection served to the landlord, Henry Pinnock, being that “the license is not needed in the neighbourhood, and that you are not a fit and proper person to hold a license, and that you have been convicted of keeping the house open for that sale of liquor during prohibited hours.”

Mr. Wollaston Knocker appeared on behalf of the owner of the house to support the renewal of the license.

Mr. Wilkie, Secretary of the Dover Temperance Council, having affirmed in lieu of taking the oath, being a member of the Society of Friends, produced an ordnance plan of the locality, with the existing public houses marked thereon. He said: I know the locality of the house in question. There are several other houses near, the “King Alfred” on Durham Hill, about 50 yards away, the “Half Moon” in Blucher Row, about 30 yards away. There is the “Cause is Altered” in Queen Street, and the “Ordnance Arms” in Queen Street.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knocker: Have you measured the distances that these houses are apart?


Then you only speak of the distances from what you have been told?

I have measured them on the plan.

You object to this license conscientiously, of course?


You are a total abstainer, I suppose?


How long have you been in Dover?

Almost two years. (A laugh).

The Mayor: I must have order. If there should be any more demonstration I will have the Court cleared.

Cross-examining continued: Do you object to public-houses generally?

I suppose I do.

Do you object top publicans receiving compensation for giving up their licenses?

That is a question which I should not like to answer with a single yes or no without some explanation.

The Mayor: Better pass that over, Mr. Knocker.

Do you know that the population has largely increased since this license was granted?

Do you mean during the past year?

No, I mean, has not the population increased since this license was originally granted?

I have no doubt that the population has increased.

Then the necessity for these houses has increased?

It would be commonly considered so.

I think you are a schoolmaster, Mr. Wilkie?

I am.

And you have opened a school next door to another, have you not?

No, there is another house, a public road, and a playground between. The other school is a considerable way up.

[At this point there was again a demonstration of feeling in the back of the Court, and the Mayor again severely reprimanded the persons who were making the demonstrations.

You would not like your school to be done away with on the ground that there were too many?

I suppose that that would come on itself if there were too many.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Schools are not regulated by licenses like the drink traffic.

Police-constable Hughes was next called. He said: I recollect giving evidence against the landlord of this house for having his house open for the sale of drink during prohibited hours, that is at one o'clock in the morning on the 10th February.

An argument here arose as to whether the evidence of the Policeman was sufficient in this case.

Mr. Mark Knowles contended that it was only necessary to refresh the4 memory of the Court, as the facts were within their own knowledge.

Mr. Mowll contended that the record of the conviction should be produced.

Ultimately the record of the conviction was produced and read by the Clerk, to the effect that the landlord of the “Bowling Green Tavern” was convicted on the 13th February of keeping open house during prohibited hours, and was fined 20s. and costs. The conviction was not recorded on the license.

Mr. Knowles said that that completed the case.

Mr. Knocker: I appear for Messrs. Leney and Co. The Bench will recollect that the ground on which you are asked to refuse this license in the first place is that it is not needed in the neighbourhood, but your Worships having made a statement as to your intended future action in that matter, I need not dwell at length on the number of houses in the neighbourhood. With regard to the second point, that he is not a fit person to conduct a public-house, there has been no evidence given as to his character, except that there was a conviction against him.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It has been held that the fact of there being one conviction against the owner of a public-house is not evidence of bad character generally.

Mr. Knocker: I am much obliged to you. It is also a fact that in this case the license was not endorsed, so that the Bench must have considered that the fine of 20s. was a sufficient punishment. It is a custom in such cases for the landlord of the house to be called up at the Licensing Sessions that he may be cautioned to keep his house better in future; and I ask the Bench to adopt that course in this case. If they departed from their usual rule in this case, the owners of the house would be put to great disadvantage. It was well known to the occupants of the Bench that Messrs. Leney and Co. were anxious that their houses should be conducted properly, and if the sense of the Bench had been marked by the endorsing of the license that the man was not fit to keep the house, they would have obtained another tenant; but the license not having been endorsed, I ask the Bench to follow their usual course, and grant the license after cautioning the occupier.

The decision was deferred.


The license of this house was also objected to by Mr. Mark Knowles on behalf of the Temperance Council, and notices had been duly served, but he said he would not go into the case fully, so as not to occupy the time of the Court. The case was well within the knowledge of the Court, and they had the power to deal with it.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You must go on and prove your notice or abandon it.

Mr. Knowles: Then I will withdraw. I do not wish to increase the agony.


Mr. Knocker: I oppose in this case on behalf of the Watch Committee.

Mr. Knowles: I oppose also.

Mr. Mowll: I appear for the owner and the occupier.

The Clerk to the Magistrates: Counsel have pre-audience.

Mr. Knocker: But perhaps in this case I may be allowed to be heard first as I am about to apply for an adjournment.

Mr. Knowles: I have no objection.

Mr. Knocker: The ground on which I ask for pre-audience is that I am going to ask for an adjournment. I have been instructed by the Watch Committee to oppose the renewal of the whole of the licenses which have been endorsed, but in this particular case I ask for an adjournment, because notice of appeal has been given against the conviction, and endorsement; therefore, the case being subjudice, I suppose that there should be an adjournment until after the Quarter Sessions which the Recorder has agreed to hold earlier so that this matter may be settled before the end of September.

Mr. Knowles thought it best to proceed with the case.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of his client, strongly objected to the adjournment. He was fully prepared to go into the case on its merits at once.

The Magistrates retired to consider the point, and on returning to Court the Mayor said that they had determined to go on with the case.

Mr. Knocker: then, as far as I am concerned, I must withdraw from the opposition.

Mr. Knowles: As far as I am concerned I shall go into it.

The notices of objection were formally proved.

Mr. Wilkie was called to prove that he signed the notice.

Being cross-examined by Mr. Mowll he said he did not think that this license was required.

The record of the conviction was put in, to the effect that the house was open from 8 a.m. till 10 a.m. on Sunday, the 12th of July last, and that the conviction was endorsed on the license.

Mr. Mark Knowles said he must submit that this was a case in which the Magistrates ought to exercise their power, and refuse this license. He could not see what the appeal had to do with the matter. The Magistrates had absolute discretion and power in the matter. It was a gross case, a person was seen going backwards and forwards seven times on a Sunday morning in this house.

Mr. Mowll objected that there had been no evidence of this.

Mr. Knowles said that it had been clearly proved before the Bench in July.

Mr. Mowll objected to the learned Counsel making a speech on matters not given in evidence.

Mr. Knowles said he was only refreshing the judicial memory by mentioning things within their own knowledge.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench, after which he called Mr. Archibald Wilson, who said he had known Mr. and Mrs. Findon for 25 years. They bore a good character. He did not know anything about the house because he never went there, but he never heard anything against it before.

The decision in this case was reserved.


Objections were taken to the renewal of the license of this house, both by Mr. Knocker on behalf of the Watch Committee and Mr. Mark Knowles on behalf of the Temperance Committee.

The notice in this case had been sent by registered letter, but it had been returned through the post.

Mr. Mark Knowles said that the holder of the license did not appear in Court to apply for the license, therefore, he took that the license would lapse; there was no application for the renewal.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared for the owner of the house and also for the present occupier, Mr. Joyner, and he asked under the decision in the case of Regina v. the Justices of Lancashire, that the license should be granted to Joyner.

James Joyner, the man in occupation was then called. He said: I am the occupier of the house called the “Khedive.” I apply for the renewal of the license to me as occupier.

In reply to the Bench, the Superintendent of Police said he knew nothing against Joyner's character. He had conducted several licensed houses for different people in the town.

Mr. Knowles objected to a new tenant being sprung upon them without notice in that way.

Mr. Mowll strongly objected to any interference, and contended that Mr. Knowles had no right to be heard.

The Mayor: I am of opinion that you have no locus standi, (In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case) no notice having been proved.

Mr. Knowles: I could not prove any notices. This is absolutely a new department.

The Mayor:' I am advised that you have no locus standi, and cannot be heard.

Mr. Knowles: I would call the Magistrates' attention to this –

The Mayor: I must ask you to sit down.

Mr. Knocker: I should like to ask how long this man has been in occupation of the house.

Mr. Mowll: my case is closed. The time has gone for asking my witness questions.

Mr. Bradley (one of the Magistrates): I should like to know how long this man has been in occupation.

The Mayor: How long have you been in occupation of this house, Joyner?

Joyner: about a week or fortnight.

The Mayor: Selling?

Joyner: No.

Mr. Mowll: Of course he could not sell.

Mr. T. V. Brown: Were the shutters down and the front doors open?

Joyner: Yes, the front door was open.

In reply to other questions, the man said he was the caretaker of the house. He had no agreement as a tenant.

The Mayor: We will decide this later on.


The objection in the case of the “Mitre Tavern” was withdrawn.


In the case of this house, the license of which had been endorsed, Mr. Knocker appeared to oppose on behalf of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Mark Knowles on behalf of the Temperance Council.

The formal service of the notices on G. T. Godfrey, the landlord was proved by Mr. Mark Knowles, who called James Gray for that purpose.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the owner of the premises, Mr. Barker, to ask that the present license should be transferred from Godfrey, the present holder, to Beaumont, in accordance with the application adjourned from the previous Friday.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that probably they would hear the two applications together.

Mr. Minter urged that the transfer should be taken first.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had decided to take both applications together.

A lengthy argument at this point then followed, after which the Court adjourned to lunch, and on coming into Court again, it was announced that the Magistrates had decided to adjourn the whole question both of the transfer and the renewal of the license till the Broadstairs meeting in September.


There was an application made by Mr. Frederick Finnis, for a provisional license for a new hotel to be constructed or converted out of Nos 1, 2, 3, and 4, Wellesley Terrace, facing the Granville Gardens. Mr. Martyn Mowll appeared to support the application, Mr. Minter apposed on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers, Mr. Armstrong of London, apposed on behalf of Mr. Walter Day Adams, Townwall Street, and Mr. Mark Knowles apposed on behalf of the Temperance Council.

Mr. E. W. Spain was called to prove the notices. He said he served the notices on Mr. J. H. Cooper, overseer of St. James', and on Superintendent Sanders, and he had seen the notice maintained on a conspicuous part of the premises in question, and on the New and Old St. James' Churches, on the Sundays 9th and 16th August, 1891. He also had the notice advertised in the Dover telegraph on the 5th August, and in the Dover Express on the 7th August. He also stated that the gross rating of the property in question was as follows – No. 1, Wellesley Terrace, 130; No. 2, 110; No. 3, 120; No. 4, 130; the rateable value for the four was 407.

Plans of the proposed building were put in.

Mr. F. Finnis was next called. He said: I reside at 12, Guildford lawn, and I am a timber merchant. I apply for the provisional license to enable me to open this hotel, which is to be constructed at Wellesley terrace, according to these plans. Our estimate of the cost of the hotel is 20,000. From my knowledge of Dover I think this hotel will be a very great boon to the town.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mark Knowles: The nearest licensed house is about 200 yards away. There may be three public-houses within 300 yards away. This would be a residential hotel, such as there was not at present in the town.

Are you going to have a tap attached to it?

Yes, I suppose we shall; we do not propose to pump our own water.

Oh! You know well enough what I mean; I am not dealing unfairly by you, and I will not allow you to make fun of me.

Mr. Mowll: You will see exactly what is intended by the plans before the Court.

Mr. Mark Knowles (continuing his cross-examination): Are you going to have an open bar?

It is not my intention to have an open bar where people may come and ask for a glass of beer, but I suppose you may apply at the “Lord Warden Hotel” for a glass of beer the same as at a public-house.

Do you intend to have any particular part of these premises set aside as a bar?

There is to be a luncheon room apart from the coffee room, but we do not intend to have an actual bar set out with three pretty barmaids at the back. The intention is that the place should afford refreshment to visitors.

Is there not ample accommodation already for visitors at hotels in the neighbourhood?

I don't know that there is within reasonable distance a place where a visitor could have a sandwich and a glass of beer.

Are there not three such hotels close by?

I do not think there is one near to which you could take your wife.

As a matter of fact I never take my wife to an hotel of any sort; you are quite right there. (Laughter.)

Mr. Armstrong here objected to the delay by speech making; he had come from London to oppose this license, and wanted to get back.

Mr. Mowll: If only these opposing gentleman are set by the ears we shall be all right.

Mr. Knowles said he only wished to ascertain, not having seen the plans, what was the character of the house that they were asking a license for. There was no necessity to jump down anyone's throat, and he was surprised at a gentleman from London doing it. (Laughter.)

The plans were then handed over, and Mr. Finnis, in reply to the Court, said the scheme included the four houses, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Mr. Knowles (continuing his cross-examination): It is not intended to have a common bar?

What do you mean by a common bar?

There would be no difficulty in altering one of the sides shown on the plan so as to have a common bar, would there?

There would be no difficulty at all; but it would not be very attractive as it would be in the basement, underground.

Look at the elevation. Would it not be possible to afford access to the coffee room?

Of course it is convertible to anything you please.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Do you say that there is no other hotel in the neighbourhood fit for visitors?

I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of other establishments, but I believe there is no other of this class.

Do you say that there is no accommodation at all in Dover of this class for visitors?

I think I am speaking rightly in saying that there is no hotel in Dover of the class I am speaking of, with a table d'hote or a place where you could bring your wife or daughter from Friday till Monday.
Is there not accommodation more than enough in Dover for all visitors? Do you mean to say that all the best hotels and places are now full?

I think they are doing a very good business. I do not think there is any other hotel offering the accommodation that we shall offer at this.

Is there not a building at the present moment licensed called the “Imperial Hotel?”

There is, but ours would be different from that.

Cross-examined by Mr. Armstrong: I suppose you do not intend to alter the present premises till you get your license?


What is your interest in these premises?

My interest is a joint interest with my brother as the lessees of Nos. 1 and 2.

Is it your brother who is a Justice of the Peace that is interested in this property?


Now who is the lessee of No. 4?

Mr. Alexander Bottle.

A capital name for the holder of a license. He is a Justice of the Peace, too, is he not?

Yes, and a chemist.

Do you intend turning this undertaking into a company? You do not think the “Imperial,” which is already in existence, would do?

I don't think it would.

Do you suggest that there is no table d'hote in Dover except the one that is to be provided at this hotel?

I don't state that it is an absolute fact, but I have resided in Dover for thirty-six years, and I am not aware of any table d'hote unless it be at the “Lord Warden Hotel.”

Are there not several houses affording the accommodation you mention in the immediate neighbourhood?

Not that I am aware of. There are several public houses.

Is not the “Shakespeare Hotel” within 160 yards?

I should have thought it over that.

And the “Sussex Arms” within a hundred yards, is it not?

I cannot say. What street is it in?

Oh! You say you have lived in Dover for thirty-six years, and you are evidently a young man that goes about. Is not the “Sussex Arms” in Townwall Street, within a hundred yards of this house?

It may be.

And is there not in Townwall Street the “Robin Hood” within ninety yards, the “Liverpool Arms” and the “Granville Arms” within forty yards?

They may be.

And is there not in the same street the “Imperial Hotel,” containing 400 rooms, unoccupied?


Perhaps you would like to see the proposed front elevation of the proposed hotel, and compare it with the “Imperial Hotel.”

No, thank you; I have no particular interest in it.

What do you say that your interest or joint interest in these premises is?

It is a joint interest with my brother in Nos. 1 and 2.

Are you the freeholders?

No, leaseholders; it is leasehold property.

You have no interest in 3 and 4?

We have no actual interest, but we have provisional contracts nor purchase if we wish.

State what your interest in Nos. 3 and 4 is?

We have no offer to purchase at specific prices.

If you can get this licence I suppose?

There is no mention of the license.

Is the contract in writing?

In one case it is in writing and in another case it is verbal.

When were these provisional agreements as to 3 and 4 put into writing?

There is no writing in the one case. The present lease holder of no. 3 is Mrs. Field, widow of the late Lieut.-General Field.

And what is your interest in that?

I have a letter from her agent giving us the offer of the property at a specified price.

That is if you get the license?

Not at all.

Then as to No. 4, is that the property of Mr. Alexander Bottle, the Justice of the Peace?

Yes, of Mr. Bottle, Chemist, Townwall Street.

Mr. Mowll said that Mr. Tree, the Architect, was present, and would explain the plans if the Magistrates wished to ask any questions.

No questions were asked of the Architect.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench. He said his application was for a provisional license, which meant that if the application was granted the Magistrates would sign the plans presented, and if the hotel were completed in accordance with those plans, the license would in due course be confirmed. There were opposed to the license three gentlemen representing different interests. The learned Counsel represented the temperance Party, Mr. Armstrong represented Mr. W. D. Adams, the holder of a license in Townwall Street, and Mr. Minter, the Licensed Victuallers. He could not see what ground the owners of the surrounding houses had to object to this new hotel. Mr. Adams was the proprietor of a place where they sold nothing but drink, and he did not think the other houses around were in the habit of supplying anything but drink, therefore there was no ground for their opposing this hotel which was intended for visitors. The rateable value of the premises would of itself be a sufficient guarantee that it would not degenerate into a drinking bar. They all objected to intemperance, and the Bench had declared their opini9on that there needed a decrease of public houses in the town, but he thought that this was a case of house that even the Temperance Party could not object to. The “Imperial Hotel” had been referred to, but that was ten times too big for the necessities of the place, and was not so well situated as these premises.

Mr. Mark Knowles, on behalf of the Temperance Council, urged the Bench not to grant the license. The refusal would not entail any loss on the applicant as he had spent nothing on the building; there had been no case made out that the house was needed, and he thought the Magistrates would be well advised if they refused the license.

Mr. Minter said that the Licensed Victuallers, whom he represented, thought that there were sufficient licensed houses in Dover, and the Magistrates, by their declaration made that morning, seemed to be of the same opinion, therefore he trusted that the bench would not stultify themselves by granting this application. There was not the slightest necessity for this house shewn; there did not, in fact, the slightest necessity exist, and as Mr. Finnis was very well-known to all the gentlemen on the Bench, they would be acting as his truest friend if they refused this license and saved him his 20,000.

Mr. Armstrong, in addressing the Bench, contended that Mr. Finnis had no interest in a portion of the property for which he was asking for a license; in one case he had only some one's verbal offer, and in the other a letter which he had left at home. AQ question had been asked if there was to be a tap, and he disclaimed that all intentions of having one. That is what they were in the habit of telling the Magistrates in London when they applied for a license for a house of this character. They never admitted when applying for the license, that they should have a tap, yet they all did it. (Laughter.) He trusted that the Bench would refuse this application, and not stultify the resolution they had announced that morning by granting a new license for a public house.

Mr. Mark Knowles, on behalf of the Temperance Council, asked for permission to put in a memorial from inhabitants of the district, objecting to the granting of the license.

The Mayor: We cannot take anything but sworn evidence.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Then the memorial cannot be put in unless it is proved on oath.

Mr. Mark Knowles said it had been the practice of these Courts for many years to receive memorials on the question of granting new licenses.

The Mayor: We will give our decision in this case with the others.


After some reference to cases from the Liberties, which were subsequently adjourned to the Broadstairs meeting, the Magistrates retired at 3.40, to consider the whole of the cases, and after an absence of ten minutes, they returned to the Bench, when

The Mayor said: I will now read the decisions of the Magistrates in the following cases:-

The “Sportsman Tavern,” license granted.

The “Bowling Green Tavern,” license granted.

The “Duke of Cambridge,” license granted.

The “Marquis of Waterford,” license granted.

The “Khedive,” license refused.

The “Mitre,” license granted.

The “Northampton Arms,” adjourned to Broadstairs.

The license for the new hotel applied for by Mr. Finnis, granted.

Mr. Martin Mowll: may I ask on what grounds you have refused to renew the license for the “Khedive?”

The Mayor: I understand it is the duty of the Magistrates to give decisions and not reasons.

Mr. Mowll: There are certain cases where the persons interested are entitled to ask on what ground the license is refused.

The Magistrates' Clerk: This is not one.

The granting of some early opening permits and dancing and singing licenses concluded the proceedings.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 September, 1891. Price 1d.



The Dover Licensing Committee held their adjourned sitting at the “Balmoral Hotel,” Broadstairs, on Wednesday afternoon at two o'clock. There were on the Bench the Mayor (W. J. Adcock, esq.), Sir Richard Dickeson, Dr. Astley, J. L. Bradley, T. V. Brown, M. Pepper, and H. Peake, Esqrs. Mr. J. Stilwell attended as the Magistrates Legal Adviser and Mr. Vidler as Clerk of the Court. Mr. Wollaston Knocker, Town Clerk, attended on behalf of the Dover Watch Committee, Mr. Marttn Mowll, retained on behalf of a house at Broadstairs, Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council, and Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, on behalf of a Dover license. The deputies of Broadstairs, St. Peters and Ville de Wood were re-appointed, and then the licenses in the Broadstairs District were renewed in cases where there were no objections. There were but two contested cases one relating to a house at Broadstairs and another at Dover. The Magistrates first heard the objection to


Superintendent Kewell objected to the renewal of the license of the “Prince Albert,” Broadstairs, on the ground that it had been closed since the last licensing meeting in September, 1890, and was therefore not needed.

Mr. Martin Mowll, on the behalf of the present tenant, Mr. Keen, applied for the renewal of the license.

Superintendent Kewell proved that he had served notice of objection on the owner by registered letter which he had himself posted, and it was returned from the Post Office. The ground of objection stated in the notice was “that the premises have for a long time past been closed and not been open since the annual licensing meeting on the 10th of September, 1890, and that the requirements of the neighbourhood are sufficiently provided for without such license.”

It was proved that a similar notice had subsequently been served on Mr. Keen, the present tenant.

Police-constable Foreman proved the serving of the notice on Mr. Keen; he went to the house from August 26th every day till September 2nd, and did not succeed in finding the occupier to serve the notice on him till the latter date.

Superintendent Kewell said: I am Superintendent of Police for the Wingham division. I know the “Prince Albert Inn.” I have passed it several times since the 10th of September, 1890. I never found it open for the sale of liquor. The house is still closed, and I consider that it is not required in the neighbourhood, there being a public house, the “Crown,” about thirty yards away on the other side of the road. The “prince Albert” is near the centre of Broadstairs about 300 yards from here. The house was closed sometime before the last licensing meeting, but I did not know it in time to oppose the renewal at that time. I passed the house this morning and I could see that there was no furniture in the bar.

Mr. Mowll: Is it not a fact that your reason for opposing the renewal of this license is simply because it has not been used since the last licensing day?

Superintendent Kewell: Yes, they circumstance gave me confidence to do it.

In reply to further cross-examination, the witness said that the house was in the main street leading to the station. There were two other public houses in the road leading to the station, but they were both up near the station. He had heard that the “Prince Albert” and the adjoining house was let at 90 a year, but he did not think the property worth so much.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench on behalf of the tenant. He said that the house in question had been in existence many years and that it was let in 1888 on lease for 25 years at 90 a year to Mr. Greaves. He was not able to make the business pay. He got in arrears of his rent, and the landlord had had to levy a distress. In consequence, difficulties were put in the way of getting another tenant in, and that was in short the reason why the house had been a year without a tenant. He (Mr. Mowll) urged that the Bench should not add to the misfortunes of the owner by refusing to renew the license. The Bench had laid down the principle at Dover that they would not thin the houses out this year, and when they came to consider the question of accommodation next year they might find the other house to be a tied house, and might prefer closing that to this which was a free house.

Evidence was then given of the character of Keen, the proposed tenant, and Mr. Walsh, the owner, was called to prove the statement of Mr. Mowll as to why there had been delay in getting the license transferred. He stated also that if the license was refused it would be a loss of between 800 and 900 to him.

The Bench having deliberated announced that they had determined to refuse the renewal of the license, but stated no reasons for their decision.


The application for the transfer of this license to Mr. E. R. Beaumont, who afterwards intended to apply for the renewal of the license, was opposed by Mr. Knocker on behalf of the Town Council and Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council.

Mr. Minter represented the interests of the tenant and the owner Mr. Barker.

After the formal evidence, Police-constable Danson was called by Mr. Knocker to speak of the character of the house. He had watched it nightly from the 27th August until the 2nd of September, and stated that it was constantly frequented by women of ill fame, who met soldiers and others there and went away with them. He had seen as many as five different women, whose names he gave, on the same evening going in and out several times.

Police-constable Scutt corroborated the evidence of Police-constable Danson.

Mr. Montegue Bradley made an effective appeal on behalf of the Temperance Council to the bench to close this house, a step which he contended would raise the moral tone of the whole of the houses in the town.

The Bench having deliberated, the Mayor stated that they had resolved to refuse the application, and their reason for doing so was that the house was frequented by prostitutes.

Mr. Minter: Will you accept notice of appeal on behalf of the Magistrates?

Mr. Stillwell: I can accept nothing.

Mr. Minter: Will you give me the names of the Magistrates adjudicating; I see that the Bench has changed; some have gone; I see that Dr. Astley is not here.

Mr. Stilwell: My Clerk will give you the names.

That concluded the business.


Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 19 September 1891.


Licensed Houses in Ashford.

According to the police return there are 34 inns and 9 beer-houses in Ashford. The population being 10,728 there is one licensed house to every 249 inhabitants. In Willesborough there are six inns and one beer-house, or one licensed house to about 400 inhabitants. It should be borne in mind that more than half the inhabitants are children.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2 October, 1891. Price 1d.


MrAlfred Grey was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

Police-constable Norman Fogg proved the case. The man was drunk at the top of Durham Hill; he was stripped and wanted to fight. Owing to the disturbance he created, he was taken to the Police Station. He was a stranger to the town, having arrived last Saturday.

He was ordered to pay half-a-crown, which he immediately disbursed.


Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 3 October 1891.


The adjourned licensing sessions for the Ramsgate division of the county was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday morning. The following justices were present:- Mr. H. B. Hammond (chairman), Capt. L. W. Vaile, and Mr. H. Weigall.


The Chairman said he should like it to be known that they had had several causes of drunkenness before them lately under circumstances which had given them the impression that publicans were in the habit of serving people with drink when in a state of intoxication. If such cases were brought before them in future and a conviction recorded, the license of the offending house would be in considerable jeopardy. There was no doubt publicans had been in the habit lately of serving men when they had been in drink. He wished the Press to take notice of these remarks emanating from the Bench, as they thought it right to give expression to them as a warning.